All these are explained far more simply by a spherical earth. You can 'explain' it only by invoking mysterious forces that leave no other sign than the particular phenomena you need explained, bending light in particular ways, having a mysterious linear acceleration without fuel, placing the sun on a path not explainable by gravity, ignoring what seems to me to be a fairly obvious thought experiment, ignoring the training given to artillery officers, and in general ignoring the simple theory in favor of a universe built by an incompetent deity that uses duct tape to hold the heavens together.
That's ah - not an explanation. If your theory requires more undetectable buy highly important forces working behind the scenes that a season of 'Lost' - then the onus is upon you to prove those force exist.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns.
CD
It's all about how you interpret the data. The only reason why RE looks like the better theory right now is that it has been built in as an assumption with all of our major scientific discoveries for centuries, it is something ingrained in everybody's mind from a very young age (much like religion), and it's assumed by some that so-called "pictures from space" somehow prove that the earth is round. However, it's impossible for some to ignore the evidence that the earth is flat. That's what this website is all about: breaking free of the accepted dogma and actually considering something that makes sense for a change.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns either. 
RtT
Um - no, it's not.
It's all in the question of whether you accept common scientific principles;
"entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity" - if a number of observations can be explained by the explanation that the earth is subject to the same gravitational forces that have been observed in the universe, thus rounding it into a (roughly) spherical shape, or alternatively
You explain the same observations by postulating other forces that have no mathematical formulation but by odd result in the same observational data;
Requiring that the sun and moon give out light over a mysterious 'Arc', ignoring the fact that this would *still* requires them to be within the same visual range at all times, even if outside the immediate arc of their 'Beam', thusly ignoring the fact that you can observe each of them rising over the horizon, even in the most 'flat' of the plains states.
Per the FAQ - "Q: "Please explain sunrises/sunsets. : A: It's a perspective effect. Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away."
Except - no, the sun on the horizon *doesn't* look further away, it looks like it's . . . disappearing below the horizon. Which is interesting and useful since, using a 'Round Earth Theory', one can simply posit that it is in fact . . . . disappearing below the horizon.
Q: "Why are other celestial bodies round but not the Earth?" A: The Earth is not one of the other planets. The Earth is special and unlike the other bodies in numerous ways.
"The Earth is Special" is an argument not notable for it's coherence, and without further support violates the fundamental principle of science that the basic laws of physics are not mutable over time or space.
Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?" A: Since sustained spaceflight is not possible, satellites can't orbit the Earth. The signals we supposedly receive from them are either broadcast from towers or any number of possible pseudolites.
Again, this posits a "Special" set of laws for some objects - notably the Sun and the Moon, which quite obviously *are* capable of maintaining a consistent 'orbit-like' frame, albeit with no mathematical model explaining it. Regardless, if the Sun and Moon can maintain the path, why not 'artificial' satellites? Presumably becase Sol and Luna are again . . . 'Special'
Q: "What about gravity?" A: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s^2) along with every star, sun and moon in the universe. This produces the same effect as gravity.
This requires straight line acceleration which requires energy - fantastical amounts of it in fact. There is no evidence, other than the effects of gravity, for this energy. Also, this theory ignores other constraints of the theory it draws from - notably, if the earth is itself massless, then it cannot 'accelerate' at all - objects without mass are constrained under relativity to move at the speed of light - c, no more, no less. Also, although there is no theoretical method of distinguishing acceleration induced 'gravity' from the gravity generated by a mass, as a practical matter acceleration induced gravity is constant through out the system, whereas mass produced gravity creates a 'gradient' - the weight of items on mountain tops are in fact measurably lighter in weight than the same mass weighed at the base of the mountain.
These all "multiply entities without necessity", as we already have a functional theory of gravity that can be mathematically formulated for simple, non relativistic systems as F=G((m1m2)/(r^2)), or for the greater extremes under Einstein's theory of relativity, both of which can be tested with ease.
Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?" A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.
Q: Follow-up to previous question: How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do? A: This argument is a non sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It doesn't follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.
Non-sequitor - it does not follow . . .
Except, actually, it does follow and is a valid question, as the bad example actually provides - "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats - except that is not the answer provided by science. The *correct* answer is that genetics and fossil records indicate that snakes diverged from the main line of lizards approximately 150 million years ago during the cretaceous period - Cats and Dogs, being mammals, are, like other mammals, descended from the main line of lizards, retaining the characteristics of two fore and hind legs. Actually, vestigial remnant of those legs can be found in snake skeletons.
The fundamental problem is that Non-Sequitor does not apply to questions - it applies to answers, as is obvious by the translation "It does not follow"; a question is first, an answer second. "Snakes are not dogs and cats" is a Non-sequitor, it does not answer the question "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?"
The question "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?" is a valid question, which the FAQ prefers to ignore rather than attempt to answer - "We Don't Know, yet" is a valid answer to a question in science, "It Just IS" never qualifies.
Q: Do you have a map?
A: See this one, created by one of our members. There is also this map attributed to a person named Wilbur Voliva, and another by Heinrich Scherer.
Also, there is Cosmas Indicopleustes' world picture, 6 th century in the Christian Topography.
There is a necessary and measurable distortion when mapping a three dimensional object onto a two dimensional plane, a distortion that navigators, pilots, captains, surveyors and a hundred other professions are forced to account for when dealing with large areas. The long and the short of it is that this distortion would be remarkable by its absence on any two-dimensional map that actually gave exactly correct distances.
By the same token, there would be tremendous distortion involved in mapping a two dimensional surface onto a three dimensional globe, with minor distortion in the north pole become huge (Literally Infinite) Distortion on the south pole. These are not 'subtle' distortions, nor are they distortions that would affect only the distances between continents - the internal structure of the continents would be completely, massively different than the shapes that show on the globes, particularly on South America and Africa - evidence for this would show up in everything from the logs of the slave trade and the West Indies Teas Company, to modern efforts to fight Farc, columbian drug trade, oil exploration, radio traffic, the ways time zones are allocated, fuel efficiency, the permutations are infinite.
One of Tom Clancy's Characters once said "The chance for a secret to be divulged is equal to the square of the number of people that know it." - this wouldn't requires thousands - it would require millions of people to be aware of it, including oddly enough myself.
A 'conspiracy' that involves everyone except the conspiracy theorist to be aware of it isn't a conspiracy - it's psychotic paranoia.
Q: "What about tides?"
A: The tides exist due to a slight see-saw effect on the earth. As it goes back and forth, the water rushes to the side that is lower. Note, this is a very slight wobble. Remember, these wobbles are created by very minor earthquakes. They keep the tides in check. Notice that large earthquakes result in large tides or "tsunami".
Tides of this sort would propagate in measurably different ways than those known, measurable effects of tides, one of which is always towards the moon, and one of which is 'released' opposing the moons gravitational influence due to the gravitational gradient of the moons gravity.
Round earth theory accounts for this second tide automatically by it's construction, FET accounts for it in no way whatsoever. Nor does the primary tide show the characteristics of a body 3,000 miles away, which would have completely different characteristics.
Q: "What about time zones?"
A: The sun is a spotlight which shines light on a concentrated area, so not everywhere on Earth will be lit at once. Times zones exist so that everyone's clock will be at 12:00 around the time the sun is approximately directly overhead.
That doesn't even make sense - for there to be any possibility for that to make sense, you would have to be able to see the sun during the period when you weren't in the spotlight. Think of a spotlight, and think of a spot light turning away from you - you, uh, still see the spot light. It doesn't mystically disappear behind the nearest object, drop below the horizon, or show any other weird characteristics at all. You see it drop below the horizon.
Q: "How come the travel time by air from South America to New Zealand, via the polar route, is SHORTER than the travel time going North first and then South again?"
A: (Presumed answer: The airline pilots are misled by their GPS, or are deliberately conspiring to make it appear that the flights take different times)
Now -*this* is a nonsequitor, an answer that doesn't follow the question. Piloting from South America to New Zealand has a physically shortest route, regardless of what topology you're using. For a pilot to cut off time from one route to another, they have to actually traverse less distance or take advantage of the rotation of the earth, or both.
This is predicted under the Round Earth model. It is impossible under the flat earth model - indeed, as proposed, *all* routes in these areas are longer and require more time speed and fuel than can be accounted for under a Flat Earth model - yet match exactly with earth as a sphere.
Q: "When traveling in a straight direction, you will always reach the same point on the globe from where you started. How can this happen if the world is flat?"
A: You need to have evidence for this to be true. Also, define "straight." Remember, the northern point on the compass is, under most circumstances (unless near the centre or deep in the ice wall), pointing toward the centre of the Earth. Therefore, if you follow your compass due east or due west, ending up at the same point you started from, you've just gone around the world in a circle.
As with a number of 'Un-disprovable' things in the FAQ, I almost ignored this one, till I caught the minor detail it completly ignores . . . .
Magnets have two poles - a compass does not 'point' towards the north pole - it aligns itself along the dominant magnetic lines of force that go from the north pole to the south pole of the closest magnet, as can be determined in any grade school science lab.
Umm - Where is the south pole? We had a south pole on the spherical earth, I had it here somewhere, and it disappeared somewhere on the flat earth. It's not on the 'bottom' of the earth - the magnetic lines would be perpendicular to the earths surface then, it's not a some arbitary point near the edge, the magnetic lines would range all sorts of places.
Umm - you guy's lost the south pole. We need it back.
Q: How come when I flush my toilet in the northern hemisphere it goes counterclockwise but I have this friend in Australia and when he flushes it goes clockwise?
You're mistaken. On a round Earth, the Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day; fewer as you get closer to the equator. The water in your toilet/sink/bathtub/funnel spins much faster than that (probably at least once per minute, or 1440 times per day) so the additional/lost rotation from the Coriolis effect wouldn't be noticed.
Okay - the Coriolis force as applied to a toilet is a myth, but this 'explanation' completely misapplies the way it works; it has to do with the fact that the higher speed of the equator adds a 'torque' to the weather patterns on a the large scale, that increases the larger the weather pattern is.
So - The Coriolis force as applied to massive hurricanes, weather patterns, et al, is not a myth - on the large scale of ocean current and such, it dominates, and weather patterns, water currents, et al below the equator very consistently and verifiably rotate in the opposing direction to their partners in the northern hemisphere, a fact that is completely inconsistent with a flat topology, yet predicted quite easily from a rotating spherical topology.
Note for the record - on a flat surface there is nothing 'special' about the 'equator' - the line separating the inner and outer half of, say, a record player - rotational velocity will increase as you move from the center to the edge, but there's no actual shifts - it's simply a mathematically predictable effect.
The rotation of a *sphere* will however create a coriolis force, again in a mathematically predictable model, with the equator being the dividing line between the clockwise and counterclockwise forces.
Q: How do seasons work?
The radius of the sun's orbit around the Earth's axis symmetry varies throughout the year, being smallest when summer is in the northern annulus and largest when it is summer in the southern annulus.
Here are some very good diagrams of seasons on the flat Earth. The first is by thedigitalnomad:
This has so many scientific impossibilities built into it's assumptions that it's kinda included here for just the humor value.
The Sun is 3,000 miles away, and 32 miles across, and 'orbits' a non-physical axis without the use of either gravity or physical link, of which there is no observable sign, in a variable but predictable pattern that happens to have the exact same effect as if the earth was a rotating sphere. Not close, not slightly off, but the exact Spirograph orbit around this invisible center as to reproduce the effect of the rotation of a slightly tilted sphere.
That's not multiplying entities without necessity - that's a geometric progression of entities without necessity.